World War Two
Published 4 May 2021A spy story almost forgotten to history that is key to understanding the espionage campaign that was waged as Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill publicly directed the frontlines. Coming together here are the histories of cryptography, Nazi double-agents, and nuclear weapons.
(more…)
May 5, 2021
Michael Geist’s overview of the federal government’s steady retreat from their 2015 election promises on protecting Canadians’ online privacy and free speech rights
Reposting his most recent Maclean’s article on his website, Michael Geist explains why the federal government’s blatant hypocrisy over Canadians’ rights online has finally gotten many people paying closer attention:
The government had maintained that it had no interest in regulating user generated content, but the policy reversal meant that millions of video, podcasts, and the other audiovisual content on those popular services would be treated as “programs” under Canadian law and subject to some of the same rules as those previously reserved for programming on conventional broadcast services.
The backlash undoubtedly caught the government by surprise, particularly since the policy change garnered little discussion at committee. As the public concern mounted, Guilbeault retreated to his standard talking points about how the opposition parties were unwilling to stand up to the web giants. The arguments fell flat, however, since the new rules were directly targeting users’ content, not the Internet companies. Further, the public reaction pointed to a government increasingly out-of-step with the public, which may support increased Internet regulation, but not at any cost.
The fact that the Liberal government was open to regulating millions of TikTok and Youtube videos was a reminder of how unrecognizable its digital policy approach has become in recent years. The party was elected in 2015 on a platform that promised to entrench net neutrality, prioritize innovation, focus on privacy rather than surveillance, and support freedom of expression. Most of those positions now seemingly reflect a by-gone era.
It is still anxious to demonstrate its tech bona fides, but now progressive policies appear to mean confronting the “web giants” with threats of regulation, penalties, and taxes. Cultural sovereignty has replaced innovation as the guiding principle, which has meant the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been replaced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage as the digital policy lead.
And so for the past 18 months, Guilbeault has been handed Canada’s digital policy keys. In Guilbeault’s eyes, seemingly everything is under threat – Canadian film and television production, a safe space for speech, the future of news – and the big technology companies are invariably to blame.
Few would dispute that an updated tech regulatory model is needed, but evidence-based policies are in short supply in the current approach. For example, the use or misuse of data lies at the heart of the power of big tech, yet privacy reforms have been curiously absent as a government priority. Indeed, Bill C-11 was promoted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last November as legislation to give Canadians greater control over their personal information, but under newly named ISI Minister François-Philippe Champagne, it has scarcely been heard from again.
The government has similarly done little to address concerns about abuse of competition, the risks associated with algorithmic decision-making, or the development of a modernized framework for artificial intelligence. Years of emphasis on the benefits of multi-lateral policy development and consensus-building were unceremoniously discarded the recent budget in order to commit to a digital services tax in 2022 that could spark billions in tariff retaliation. In fact, the US-Canada-Mexico Trade Agreement that the government trumpeted as a major success story restricts Canada’s ability to even establish a new liability regime for technology companies.
Comments Off on Michael Geist’s overview of the federal government’s steady retreat from their 2015 election promises on protecting Canadians’ online privacy and free speech rights
New Rifles for Old Ammo: The Royal Navy’s Unique SMLE MkI**
Forgotten Weapons
Published 27 Jan 2021http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
https://www.floatplane.com/channel/Fo…
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
When the SMLE was adopted by the British, it was to be the new universal rifle for all branches of service, including the Royal Navy. This suited the Navy just fine; they like the features of the new design. However, the Army quickly moved to update their rifles for the new MkVII Spitzer ammunition, and this was an issue. The Navy still had substantial stockpiles of the older round-nose MkVI cartridge, and did not go through it nearly as quickly as the Army. The Navy did not want to simply throw out their ammunition, but the differences in trajectory between the two types of ammunition was substantial. So the Navy opted to adopt its own unique rifle variation, the MkI**. This in effect was the new Army pattern rifle, but with the rear sight still calibrated for the trajectory of MkVI ammunition.
This pattern was first adopted in 1908, using rifles with the then-standard split charger guide. When the fixed charger bridge was adopted, the Navy (which still had plenty of MkVI ammunition) chose to update its MkI** rifles to fixed charger bridges, without making any change to their designation. Once they finally ran out of the older ammunition during World War One, the rifles were updated once again to what was then the standard MkI*** pattern. As a result, intact MkI** rifles — especially ones with the split charger guide — are extremely rare to find today. Many thanks to the owner of these two specimens for giving me access to share them with you!
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle #36270
Tucson, AZ 85740
Comments Off on New Rifles for Old Ammo: The Royal Navy’s Unique SMLE MkI**
QotD: The United Nations
One of the reasons I’m in favour of small government is because big government tends to be remote government, and remote government is unaccountable, and, as a wannabe world government, the UN is the remotest and most unaccountable of all. If the sentimental utopian blather ever came true and we wound up with one “world government”, from an accounting department point of view, the model will be Nigeria rather than New Hampshire.
Mark Steyn, “Would you trust these men with $64bn of your cash? Of course not”, Telegraph Online, 2005-02-06.
Comments Off on QotD: The United Nations
